The Malign Comedy of the Far Left
Does the radical Left have a sense of humor? No doubt they think so. As a matter of fact, the far-leftist New York Press—a once courageously independent newspaper that has devolved into a poor man’s Village Voice—publishes an annual issue intended to prove the point.
The idea is simple: Compile a list of the “50 Most Loathsome New Yorkers” and then berate them in the most obscene fashion permissible under New York’s libel statutes. (Doesn’t that sound like fun?) So just which Gothamites are accorded the unenviable superlative? Well, there’s Max Boot, and Norman Podhoretz, and Bill O’Reilly, and Lawrence Kudlow. (Detect a pattern?) Needless to say, the paper has nothing intelligent—never mind funny—to say about any of these individuals. About Norman Podhoretz, the paper writes, "Someone needs to just die already."
It will give you some idea about the rest of the profiles when I point out that this is among the more reflective, not too mention less scurrilous, examples. Podhoretz’s great crime, of course, is advocating a muscular prosecution of the war on terror, which, apparently, is too much for the meek spirits of the New York Press. Equally telling is the paper’s attack on Lawrence Kudlow. Dubbed “the Market Impaler,” Kudlow stands convicted of supporting a “mass-homicidal version of Monopoly.” By this, the paper seems to mean nothing more than free-market capitalism. Are you laughing yet? Me neither.
14 Comments:
It's called humor, it's a joke... settle down,
The power of humor is derived from its contradiction or exaggeration of real life. Humor emanating from the left can therefore be difficult to identify, since their politicians, activists and media organs so often violate that thin line intended to separate parody from reality.
Case in point: the recent articles / editorials on "looksism" and "Leninism", which apparently originated in college newspapers, and were reproduced by FP. I still cannot figure out whether these were parody pieces, or whether they genuinely reflected the beliefs of their authors. (It is, after all, April Fools Day.)
When political arguments are so easily mistaken for humor, and vice versa, that cannot be a good sign for the political arguments in question, or the people behind them.
In order for jokes and humor to serve their purpose, they must actually be, at a minimum, mildly amusing. Somebody tell the New York Press to put something mildly amusing in those 50 bits, and I'll re-read them.
So true. As a New York native myself, I used to like reading the NY Press online when it featured Christopher Caldwell's "Hill of Beans" and occasional articles by William Tucker. Now even MUGGER's column is subdued, and perhaps soon to disappear (it doesn't show in this week's issue). Today the NY Press is indistinguishable from every other left-wing
"alternative" rag carrying Tom Tomorrow's strip.
"When political arguments are so easily mistaken for humor, and vice versa, that cannot be a good sign for the political arguments in question, or the people behind them."
...This is very true, and I think that much of the media is guilty of clouding this distinction. From Fox News to Time Magazine to Local Affiliate WB news at 10 to the New Yorker. I think it occurs when people insist on understanding things in polemical ways.
When you refuse to view the inherent similarities AND differences in all events and initiatives, it is impossible to share any humor.
It's ridiculous for you keep your fists up and rail about the leftistness of the NYPress and at the same time complain that their "50 Loathsome" list is not funny. That is completely obvious and pointless. It's just as stupid as a leftist diehard complaining about Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter and the NYPress are engaging in identical pratices of "provocative junk reporting." They are one another's yin to yang.
...but, in all seriousness I think the one about Tony Danza is pretty funny;
"Tony Danza makes us wish our Italian grandmother was Lithuanian. If his last name were McDanza, he'd be doing his show dressed like Lucky the Charm. Black Tony Danza would gobble watermelon; Jewish Tony Danza would spend the hour popping matzoh balls while counting gold coins."
Tony Danza being a creep is something everyone can agree on! Even Tony!!
This was a poor article and a lame attemt at satire. Graydon Carter, Kouric, Charles Barron, Gifford Miller, Anthony Wiener are all on the left and poorly satired. I have zero idea where the Olsen Twins , A Rod and some of the others are.
The only thing apparent is the writer of the original piece is satiricaly impaired. This is not Laskins best effort.
I think the "50 Loathsome" is not without humor or satiric quality - and none of the attacks seemed pointless.
But nothing political in it betrayed any intellectual depth, merely standard issue leftism. So even though provocative polemics are found in both, this NY Press piece comes nowhere close in quality to Ann Coulter's blistering AND astute work.
No more pathetic than the vicious bitches on the right with their majestic leaps from cold hearted realism into religious irrationality
Mr. Laskin's seems to see a pattern where none is visible. Perhaps I am missing something. It strikes me as evident that the alleged satirists lampoon folks on the left, right, middle, top and bottom. That's not to say that the satires are funny or even fair (there is such a thing). They are neither. But if they are funny, they are hardly so.
To see a pattern is to impose one from without.
Gotta agree with Contratimes, weren't no pattern there, 'cept they're all New Yorkers. gee, wonder why.
Of course, it wasn't funny either, just that weird, whiny, nasty mean that is soured satire, left too long to fester.
I had a post all cleverly written out about New York and New Yorkers, but I deleted it. I don't want to come across sounding like the sophomoric spit wad throwers and wedgie practitioners at the New York Press.
Danza and Couric were spot on. I think they spread the venom around fairly evenly.
I was surprised he used the word 'blog' in so many entries. Almost as if in using blog he taking away some of its power.
The left is really afraid of us.
The New York Press is a not a far left paper. It's an angry, libertarian left paper with a solid presence from the right. Among the 50 Most Loathsome, an article I enjoyed thoroughly, were Eliot Spitzer, Katie Couric (who has her own profile on DTN), Adam Gopnik, Anthony Weiner and Graydon Carter (who also, I think, has a DTN profile).
How seriously can I take these kinds of critiques from the right if even the NYPress, and an article which spreads the hostility around pretty evenly, doesn't pass muster?
Do hard core leftists have a tendency to be humorless? Sure. So do hard core conservatives. Ideologues of any stripe tend to be humorless. But can people who are, broadly, on the left be funny? How about The Daily Show? The Onion? The South Park guys, like the NYPress gang, aren't so easy to identify ideologically, but they're as hilarious when they're going after the right as they are when they're going after the left.
Post a Comment
<< Home